"Iraq's Mission"

The following is a transcripte from CNN.com ___


Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

-end transcript

Some of you who have read this might have thought it was plucked from a resent CNN weblink, and that it was indeed Bush speaking. It has all the trademarks, but its actually Bill Cinton speaking on Dec. 16 1998. Granted it was just about "miltary strikes" but he is pretty much saying the same damn thing we have been hearing over and over again for almost a year from Bush. Clinton even vaugely referenced farther miltary action if they don't comply. The really haven't complied much at all. This was years ago, but did many people give him crap and say where is the smoking gun? I know he wasn't asking for all out WAR, but he basically was implying that if the situation stays the same or gets worse it might be necessary

I'd rather see a stronger link bettwee Iraq and 9/11 than hearing that the weapons they have could be used against us in the future. The most that I know that have heard is that various terrorists linked to 9/11 met with Iraqi agents. However after reading this Clinton makes it harder to argue lack of miltary support, because he issued a final warning in 1998. Add that to all the ones Bush gave him, and thats quite a few. Basically from what I remember he yanked inspectors out of there so he could hit some targets. They were never allowed back in, and as he had said the inspections weren't progressing anyway. I DONT want war, one of my best friends is over there, but what is the alternative? More sanctions that won't work? Its bad enough we put it off this long with the US soliders standing out there in sandstorms and all, as we try to iron things out with the UN. Id imagine if the US wanted to go to war they may have done it sooner, but simply couldn't have without jumping a few hurrdles.

Is it hard to come to grips with the dirty deeds that need to be done in order to prevent Saddam from getting out of control? Or is it just the US going buck-wild after the land the horrible events of 9/11. Is Bush mad with power? email me at Mst3keith@aol.com cause I'd like to know what my readers think.
Tucker's World has yet to claim a positive position on the WAR, but I thought I would throw these links out here.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/clinton/